Probably going to pass this time, but is this a good thing? Meh.

It's generally best to provide a courtesy link.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5

He has my support or would if I could support him.

I promised not to start this thread here as that might have been a kiss of death, but with 65 supports it doesn't matter anymore.

That would be 'Ironholds' and the 7th, not 6th, attempt. Has anyone else had any more RFAs, or is this a record?

It is a boring January 2, 2011. I know this is true because I am reading RFA's at Wikipedia...

As I type, there is one oppose, but what a doozer! A certain "Colonel Warden" undertook some analysis of Ironholds' behavior and found it desperately wanting. The key conclusion being "Ironholds is impatient and intolerant of work which does not meet his own high standards. This makes him a good editor but a poor administrator."

The "Chase Me ladies, I'm the cavalry" (CMLITC) joker -- who was one of IH's first supporters -- challenges this conclusion, but only makes it worse: CW suggests that even late behavior from IH remains consistent with his conclusion. Oops!

My own view is that IH should be given the bit, as this will most certainly Hasten The Day™.

A few more comments:

1. A number of the support votes are from people that can only be called personal friends of the candidate, brief they may be. Dare one mention "COI"? Have these people no shame at all?

2. Similarly, but more seriously, we have the support of CMLITC. This yahoo voted while being a sitting member of ArbCom -- note that his tenure began 00:00 Jan 1, 2011. Now, one might be able to say of the masses of Wikipediots that they would naturally vote for their friends and against their enemies, regardless of the merits ... but surely, an ArbCom member knows better than to compromise his own position in this manner?

I thought there was someone with at least ten RfAs on the English Wikipedia.

Wow! CMLIMTC was elected to Arbcom? I didn't realize being an ignorant moron was a prerequisite for Arbcom these days.

So, I take it you've never paid attention to who sits on Arb or how people here respond to them? Because I think it was rather clear that "ignorant moron" is how people at WR describe most of the people with power at Wikipedia.


By the way, I like The Cavalry.

Still, I thought most ArbCommers who turn out to be morons were at least able to hide that fact until after their election. And he only got 60% of the vote (and wasn't even the least popular candidate to be elected). A couple of years ago there was controversy because Jayjg was appointed despite only getting 69% support.

Well, if you can't get a room, maybe you could just chase him.

Haw haw. Pwned.

Ironholds has indeed been up for RFA so many times, people have given up keeping track.
RFA #2, in 2008.
RFA #4, exactly a year ago.

In 2007, he was called O keyes. (First name Oliver.)
And went thru two failed RFAs.

Wikipedians have short memories indeed. They don't remember this.

Oh, btw:

Only 145? How on earth does he manage?

TenPoundHammer has had seven failed RfA attempts. I think that's the record

Courtesy my ass.



Again the sixth. The first time is not "again" you see.

If you factor in all the dumbass kids and the professional nerds, you get an average wikipediot's IQ of about 145, plus the various psychiatric stuff. Ironholds seems around average, except for the seven RFAs.

IQs are based on the median, not the average.

IQ purports to describe a person's relative position in a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. That would make it more "based" on the mean than the median. I'm not sure what "average" has to do with it or even means in this context. Prissy prima donnas shouldn't make shit up.

In a normal distribution, or indeed any symmetrical distribution, the median and the mean are one and the same. "Average" is an imprecise word that can refer to either (or, indeed, to neither), though it's probably most often used to mean "mean".

Yes they are the same for theoretical normal distributions. But the mean is used to calculate the standard deviation and the median is not. Standard deviations can be used for populations without a normal distribution and also for non-theoretical samples. In these cases the mean is not the same as the median. Using the median would not work. Our "content creator" friend Malleus posts about things he knows nothing about, even going out of his way to inappropriately correct others for no reason other than smarty-pantsism. I don't follow him on WP but maybe some Wikipedians should look into this there.

Good idea. Why don't you do it, you might learn something at last. Including how IQs are actually calculated based on assumptions about a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 or so depending on which test you're talking about.

Say some more words to hide your ignorance. Classic Wikipedian. I won't be looking but maybe someone in your Herd of Nerds.

Aren't IQ scores calculated based on the assumption that "intelligence" (wtf that is) is distributed normally?
(To the extent that the basic concept even makes an iota of sense - which I don't think it does - a log normal or something else skewed to the left would seem like a more realistic assumptions. I'm guessing that they grabbed the normal because lots of physical characteristics are approximately normal so they figured mental attributes and behavior would be also. Actually lots of "behaviors" and such have a lot of skewness in them)

He's got a Facebook.